On the eve of the release of the final Twilight film, just as thinking people everywhere are rejoicing at the news that we will never have to suffer through another one, a new trailer comes along to say "not so fast."
Yes, for those who had forgotten, Stephanie Meyer did in fact write something non-Twilight related: The Host (Not to be confused with the Korean monster movie). The story concerns a post-apocalyptic world where the human race has been possessed by body snatching aliens called "Souls" (gee, how long did it take you to think of that name, Stephanie?) Possessed humans are identifiable by their glowing iris's, because we all know how Stephanie Meyer loves her superhumans with weird eyes. Saoirse Ronan plays the heroine Melanie, one of the last remaining unpossessed humans, who is captured and possessed, but for some reason (if she's anything like Bella "you can't read my mind" Swan, those reasons will go unexplained) she alone is able to put up any kind of resistance.
I will admit, the premise is vaguely interesting. The basic idea is these two beings, one human the other alien, fighting each other inside the same body, and eventually finding some empathy towards one another through contact with each others memories & emotions.
Of course, being a Stephanie Meyer book there are two love interests, the twist apparently being one is in love with Melanie, while the other falls in love with "Wanderer" (the alien). This is of course downplayed in this trailer, the thinking supposedly being that Meyer's readers will show up no matter what, and making this seem as little like Twilight as possible will hopefully lure in any curious sci-fi fans.
The big tragedy here is the director of this project is Andrew Niccol, the man behind Gattaca who you'll remember me expressing a certain amount of admiration for in my review of In Time. He does have writing duties as well so maybe he was able to hammer out a decent script from Meyer's childish drivel*. But having talented directors didn't help the Twilight saga, and anyone who's seen S1m0ne knows Niccol isn't immune to failure. We'll see.
At any rate this is unlikely to be the second Twilight franchise they're doubtlessly hoping it will be. Meyer has yet to pen the promised sequel to The Host, and Taylor Lautner's failure at launching an action career indicates even the Twihards won't mindlessly follow anyone associated with Twilight wherever the go. I predict this one will quietly underperform and we'll never hear from Stephanie Meyer again...God willing.
*In the interest of fairness, I have not actually read The Host, I'm merely assuming it's childish drivel. Tried to read Twilight once, didn't make it past the first chapter before I quit in disgust.
Showing posts with label Trailers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trailers. Show all posts
Thursday, November 15, 2012
The Best of 2012 is Yet to Come
2012 has been a pretty good year so far. Despite normally reliable stalwarts like Pixar and Christopher Nolan not bringing their A-game and an overall rather shitty summer, the normally unimpressive fall & spring have yielded one surprising gem after another: Cabin in the Woods, Chronicle, Dredd, Looper, ParaNorman, Beasts of the Southern Wilds, Argo, Seven Psychopaths, Skyfall, Cloud Atlas; and even the summer didn't feel so drab as long as Avengers & Ted stuck around for us to see over and over again.
And what's even better is that some of the most promising films of the year are still to come. Most of the country has yet to see Spielberg's reportedly awesome Lincoln, the spectacular-looking Life of Pi is still to come, and this December will bring a trinity of movies that promises to make this the best Christmas in forever. Peter Jackson returning to Middle-Earth, Quentin Tarantino making a goddamn slavery revenge western, and most importantly: LES. FUCKING. MIZ.
As I may have mentioned a few dozen time, I'm a complete sucker for musicals, so naturally I would love Les Misérables. It's one of the most enduring and beloved musicals in all of theater. So believe me when I say that every trailer I see for this movie makes me jump up and down like a little girl.
Interesting to note that up until this particular trailer, we had yet to hear Russell Crowe's singing voice as the villain Inspector Javert. He was a point of apprehension among some of my Les Miz loving friends, as unlike Hugh Jackman he has no Broadway musical experience (though he has cut and albulm or two apparently, I've never heard them), and the fact that he was appearing only visually in most of the advertising suggested perhaps they weren't exactly proud of voice. This is the first trailer to feature said voice and...yes, it's not exactly great. Though I think is may be less of a problem than it has been in the past when musical movies have cast actors with no theater background who can barely sing. The big innovation that's being touted with this particular film is the method of recording the actors actually singing onset as opposed to lip-synching. This not only allows their acting to feel less wooden and deliberate, but also gives the singing a sort of raw emotional quality. Anne Hathaway's delivery of the famous "I Dreamed a Dream" has been featured prominently in all the trailers, and is very much NOT polished studio singing. Anne deliberately avoided giving, as she put it, "the pretty version" in order to give something more emotionally realistic. So basically, this seems to be a production where it won't matter so much if the actors can't sing particularly well, or if they're occasionally offkey because that's part of the point.
SEE GLEE?! THIS IS WHAT A "REALISTIC MUSICAL" LOOKS LIKE!!
And what's even better is that some of the most promising films of the year are still to come. Most of the country has yet to see Spielberg's reportedly awesome Lincoln, the spectacular-looking Life of Pi is still to come, and this December will bring a trinity of movies that promises to make this the best Christmas in forever. Peter Jackson returning to Middle-Earth, Quentin Tarantino making a goddamn slavery revenge western, and most importantly: LES. FUCKING. MIZ.
As I may have mentioned a few dozen time, I'm a complete sucker for musicals, so naturally I would love Les Misérables. It's one of the most enduring and beloved musicals in all of theater. So believe me when I say that every trailer I see for this movie makes me jump up and down like a little girl.
Interesting to note that up until this particular trailer, we had yet to hear Russell Crowe's singing voice as the villain Inspector Javert. He was a point of apprehension among some of my Les Miz loving friends, as unlike Hugh Jackman he has no Broadway musical experience (though he has cut and albulm or two apparently, I've never heard them), and the fact that he was appearing only visually in most of the advertising suggested perhaps they weren't exactly proud of voice. This is the first trailer to feature said voice and...yes, it's not exactly great. Though I think is may be less of a problem than it has been in the past when musical movies have cast actors with no theater background who can barely sing. The big innovation that's being touted with this particular film is the method of recording the actors actually singing onset as opposed to lip-synching. This not only allows their acting to feel less wooden and deliberate, but also gives the singing a sort of raw emotional quality. Anne Hathaway's delivery of the famous "I Dreamed a Dream" has been featured prominently in all the trailers, and is very much NOT polished studio singing. Anne deliberately avoided giving, as she put it, "the pretty version" in order to give something more emotionally realistic. So basically, this seems to be a production where it won't matter so much if the actors can't sing particularly well, or if they're occasionally offkey because that's part of the point.
SEE GLEE?! THIS IS WHAT A "REALISTIC MUSICAL" LOOKS LIKE!!
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Walter Hill Made Another Movie
So I'm reluctantly sitting down to watch The Expendables 2, when a trailer for ANOTHER generic-looking Sylvester Stallone action movie appears. Between this and Schwarzenegger's The Last Stand, I guess these guys really are pretending their careers aren't over. So I'm watching this trailer, generic set-up, vaguely racist joke, blah blah...and then at about 1:08, with just four words they suddenly have my attention: "From director Walter Hill".
Thursday, June 21, 2012
America to Once Again Miss the Point of Judge Dredd
I'm fond of saying that the 1995 Stallone vehicle Judge Dredd is proof that Americans are idiots, because it completely fails to grasp that the British comic it was adapting was a parody of American action films. From the looks of it, this new version hasn't learned that lesson either.
Friday, December 9, 2011
"The Lorax" trailer
An adaption of a Dr. Seuss book with needless story padding & generic kid's movie slapstick? Fourth verse, same as the first.
The thing that continuously disappoints me about the Dr. Seuss movies is that they all have seemingly no interest in actually capturing the tone of a Dr. Seuss book. They just take the basic plot and the aesthetics and drape it over a formula slapstick kids movie. There's no real sense of the surreal or childlike wonder. When I was a little kid my mom used to read me stuff like The Butter Battle Book & The 500 hats of Batholomew Cubbins, and they always felt to me like bizarre fairytales & fables that existed in a world all their own, not some wacky sugar rush. These movies feel more like the cereal commercials I watched in the 90's rather than the bedtime stories that soothed me to sleep.
Once again they seem to be really stretching out & filling in relatively small parts of the book to pad out the running time, in this case giving a name & a backstory to the previously nameless boy to whom the Once-ler narrates his encounters with the titular Lorax too. This strikes me as particularly unnecessary. Unlike The Cat & the Hat, The Lorax was one of the longer of Dr. Seuss's books, it seems to me there's plenty there to work with. Even more baffling, they seem to have reworked things so that he is in fact the star of the film, with the Once-ler & the Lorax as merely side characters whose story inspires him to "speak for the trees!" For the trees have no tongues, you see.
Yes, I do apologize for that joke.
Also, WHY CAN WE SEE THE ONCE-LER's FACE??!! I know that seems like a nitpick, but The once defining visual aspect of the Once-ler was that all you ever saw of him with a pair of long green gloves. These movies have at least been good at replicating Seuss's artwork up until now.
The thing that continuously disappoints me about the Dr. Seuss movies is that they all have seemingly no interest in actually capturing the tone of a Dr. Seuss book. They just take the basic plot and the aesthetics and drape it over a formula slapstick kids movie. There's no real sense of the surreal or childlike wonder. When I was a little kid my mom used to read me stuff like The Butter Battle Book & The 500 hats of Batholomew Cubbins, and they always felt to me like bizarre fairytales & fables that existed in a world all their own, not some wacky sugar rush. These movies feel more like the cereal commercials I watched in the 90's rather than the bedtime stories that soothed me to sleep.
Once again they seem to be really stretching out & filling in relatively small parts of the book to pad out the running time, in this case giving a name & a backstory to the previously nameless boy to whom the Once-ler narrates his encounters with the titular Lorax too. This strikes me as particularly unnecessary. Unlike The Cat & the Hat, The Lorax was one of the longer of Dr. Seuss's books, it seems to me there's plenty there to work with. Even more baffling, they seem to have reworked things so that he is in fact the star of the film, with the Once-ler & the Lorax as merely side characters whose story inspires him to "speak for the trees!" For the trees have no tongues, you see.
Yes, I do apologize for that joke.
Also, WHY CAN WE SEE THE ONCE-LER's FACE??!! I know that seems like a nitpick, but The once defining visual aspect of the Once-ler was that all you ever saw of him with a pair of long green gloves. These movies have at least been good at replicating Seuss's artwork up until now.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
J. Edgar trailer
Hat-tip: Graham Finch
Wow, somebody actually requested I talk about this. I honestly didn't think anybody was reading these things. Well, here we go...
The reaction most people seem to be having to this seems to be "blatant Oscar bait, BUT...Clint Eastwood". And I find it hard to disagree. A film covering the life from childhood to death of a powerful, idealistic man drawn slowly into corruption, played by a talented, versatile young actor (ok, Leonardo DeCaprio isn't really young anymore, but with that boyish face of his, it's hard to tell), artificially aged with heavy makeup, it's hard not to think "this is trying really hard to be Citizen Kane". But of course, it's completely different: here they made an actual biopic rather than fictionalizing a real life person.
I kid, of course. This is Clint Eastwood after all, so it will almost certainly be good, even if it's not terribly groundbreaking from the looks of it. The old "idealist rises to power yet falls into corruption" story is one of the most popular topics for dramas, especially Oscar contenders, and frankly I think we've made too many of them already. I tend to think the Academy, and high-minded film scholars in general, perhaps place too little value on optimistic themes in storytelling. We've made a lot of Citizen Kane's, but not a lot of Mr. Smith goes to Washington's. Life is grim enough already, we don't need movies to constantly remind us of it. We could use more films with that kind've hopeful, pick-me-up spirit we used to get from Frank Capra oh so long ago.
As an aside, I find it amusing they had to name this after the title character's given name. I imagine they didn't want anyone thinking this film was about vacuum cleaners.
Wow, somebody actually requested I talk about this. I honestly didn't think anybody was reading these things. Well, here we go...
The reaction most people seem to be having to this seems to be "blatant Oscar bait, BUT...Clint Eastwood". And I find it hard to disagree. A film covering the life from childhood to death of a powerful, idealistic man drawn slowly into corruption, played by a talented, versatile young actor (ok, Leonardo DeCaprio isn't really young anymore, but with that boyish face of his, it's hard to tell), artificially aged with heavy makeup, it's hard not to think "this is trying really hard to be Citizen Kane". But of course, it's completely different: here they made an actual biopic rather than fictionalizing a real life person.
I kid, of course. This is Clint Eastwood after all, so it will almost certainly be good, even if it's not terribly groundbreaking from the looks of it. The old "idealist rises to power yet falls into corruption" story is one of the most popular topics for dramas, especially Oscar contenders, and frankly I think we've made too many of them already. I tend to think the Academy, and high-minded film scholars in general, perhaps place too little value on optimistic themes in storytelling. We've made a lot of Citizen Kane's, but not a lot of Mr. Smith goes to Washington's. Life is grim enough already, we don't need movies to constantly remind us of it. We could use more films with that kind've hopeful, pick-me-up spirit we used to get from Frank Capra oh so long ago.
As an aside, I find it amusing they had to name this after the title character's given name. I imagine they didn't want anyone thinking this film was about vacuum cleaners.
Friday, August 19, 2011
"Ghost Rider 2" trailer
You cannot tell me you don't wanna see a movie about Nicolas Cage PISSING FIRE.
I gotta admit I was excited when I heard that the duo of Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor were directing this thing. The first Ghost Rider film was a mixed bag, it coupled a great lead (as well as some brief but great turns by Sam Elliot and Peter Fonda) with terrible villains and mediocre direction. So basically this new one is keeping what worked and ditching what didn't, which is exactly how one should approach a sequel.
The thing about Ghost Rider is that even the first one was probably way better than the character deserved. Ghost Rider's really had nothing more than a massively badass look to go on since day one, because his actual character was an after thought. They just had this cool design and needed something to do with it (if memory serves he was originally going to be a Daredevil villain). So when there's really nothing more to your movie's hero beyond having a flaming skull for a head, the kind of go-for-broke insanity that Neveldine & Taylor bring to their work is probably the best way to go.
It is kind of disappointing that Peter Fonda isn't returning as the Devil, but on the plus side Christopher Lambert is apparently playing a sword-wielding monk. Holy Christ, if he plays this role with the sly sense of humor he did Raiden, this will be priceless.
I gotta admit I was excited when I heard that the duo of Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor were directing this thing. The first Ghost Rider film was a mixed bag, it coupled a great lead (as well as some brief but great turns by Sam Elliot and Peter Fonda) with terrible villains and mediocre direction. So basically this new one is keeping what worked and ditching what didn't, which is exactly how one should approach a sequel.
The thing about Ghost Rider is that even the first one was probably way better than the character deserved. Ghost Rider's really had nothing more than a massively badass look to go on since day one, because his actual character was an after thought. They just had this cool design and needed something to do with it (if memory serves he was originally going to be a Daredevil villain). So when there's really nothing more to your movie's hero beyond having a flaming skull for a head, the kind of go-for-broke insanity that Neveldine & Taylor bring to their work is probably the best way to go.
It is kind of disappointing that Peter Fonda isn't returning as the Devil, but on the plus side Christopher Lambert is apparently playing a sword-wielding monk. Holy Christ, if he plays this role with the sly sense of humor he did Raiden, this will be priceless.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
"Battleship" trailer...no, really
So apparently the very idea of making a movie out of a board game wasn't enough stupid for them. They had to throw in the Decepticons.
This honestly could not look more like fail if it tried. Sure we already knew that a Battleship movie would have next to nothing in common with the actual game aside from the title and involving battleships in some way. After all the game has no recognizable story or characters for them to adapt. At least Candyland has characters and locations and could conceivably be made into a Hanzel & Gretel-meets-Alice in Wonderland style kids movie. But a Battleship movie would presumably just be a generic Naval war film.
But NO. They couldn't stop there. A well-known brand name alone does not a blockbuster make. And so we get this utterly blatant attempt to ape the Transformers movies. Seriously, you could rewrite the title card to say "Transformers 4" and you wouldn't notice anything amiss.
Oh, and they don't show her in the trailer, but Rihanna is in this. Yup. She's making her cinematic debut. Joy. Look I know a pop star turning out to be a good actress isn't unheard of, but for every Justin Timberlake there are dozens of Britney Spears's (and yes, she had a stab at an acting career).
You know, whenever people hear about things like this: remakes, adaptions, etc. they always say Hollwood is out of ideas. Not true. Hollywood is swimming in good ideas. They're just running out of marketable ideas, or at least they think they are. There are tons of comic books and novels begging for a movie, tons of enterprising young filmmakers with great scripts and ideas. But nobody's ever heard of them. And I think that's what pisses me off about this the most. Sure we could make great movies out of Hawkman, the Suicide Squad, the Spectre, hell, even Ragman would make a pretty awesome flick! Oh, but those things are only popular with a niche audience. But everybody's played Battleship! Sure it has no plot and people will make fun, but who cares, it's brand recognition! Guaranteed box office hit! Greenlight that shit!
This honestly could not look more like fail if it tried. Sure we already knew that a Battleship movie would have next to nothing in common with the actual game aside from the title and involving battleships in some way. After all the game has no recognizable story or characters for them to adapt. At least Candyland has characters and locations and could conceivably be made into a Hanzel & Gretel-meets-Alice in Wonderland style kids movie. But a Battleship movie would presumably just be a generic Naval war film.
But NO. They couldn't stop there. A well-known brand name alone does not a blockbuster make. And so we get this utterly blatant attempt to ape the Transformers movies. Seriously, you could rewrite the title card to say "Transformers 4" and you wouldn't notice anything amiss.
Oh, and they don't show her in the trailer, but Rihanna is in this. Yup. She's making her cinematic debut. Joy. Look I know a pop star turning out to be a good actress isn't unheard of, but for every Justin Timberlake there are dozens of Britney Spears's (and yes, she had a stab at an acting career).
You know, whenever people hear about things like this: remakes, adaptions, etc. they always say Hollwood is out of ideas. Not true. Hollywood is swimming in good ideas. They're just running out of marketable ideas, or at least they think they are. There are tons of comic books and novels begging for a movie, tons of enterprising young filmmakers with great scripts and ideas. But nobody's ever heard of them. And I think that's what pisses me off about this the most. Sure we could make great movies out of Hawkman, the Suicide Squad, the Spectre, hell, even Ragman would make a pretty awesome flick! Oh, but those things are only popular with a niche audience. But everybody's played Battleship! Sure it has no plot and people will make fun, but who cares, it's brand recognition! Guaranteed box office hit! Greenlight that shit!
Friday, July 22, 2011
"In Time" trailer
Oh, hell yeah.
For those not familiar with Andrew Niccol, he's a director who specializes in my favorite kind of movie: high concept science fiction. He wrote and directed Gattaca & S1m0ne, AND scripted The Truman Show. This is his first sci-fi film in nine years, so needless to say I'm pretty psyched to see this. Gattaca & The Truman Show were masterpieces, and this looks to be in the same vein of thinly veiled science fiction allegories used for the purpose of social commentary.
Sure it's more science fantasy than science fiction, for example the premise involves a technology that switches off the "aging gene". I'm terrible at science, but I'm pretty certain no such thing exists, it's just the nature of matter, organic or inorganic, to break down over time, so it's more like they rewrote the laws of physics. Still, that's pretty much how Niccol's films work, the story isn't about how whatever sci-fi tech involved works, but about how it's presence affects the characters lives.
So yeah, definitely one to look forward to. Probably gonna fly under the radar for most people considering the release date unfortunately, but I'd encourage you all to check it out, or at least hunt down Niccol's other work if you haven't already.
For those not familiar with Andrew Niccol, he's a director who specializes in my favorite kind of movie: high concept science fiction. He wrote and directed Gattaca & S1m0ne, AND scripted The Truman Show. This is his first sci-fi film in nine years, so needless to say I'm pretty psyched to see this. Gattaca & The Truman Show were masterpieces, and this looks to be in the same vein of thinly veiled science fiction allegories used for the purpose of social commentary.
Sure it's more science fantasy than science fiction, for example the premise involves a technology that switches off the "aging gene". I'm terrible at science, but I'm pretty certain no such thing exists, it's just the nature of matter, organic or inorganic, to break down over time, so it's more like they rewrote the laws of physics. Still, that's pretty much how Niccol's films work, the story isn't about how whatever sci-fi tech involved works, but about how it's presence affects the characters lives.
So yeah, definitely one to look forward to. Probably gonna fly under the radar for most people considering the release date unfortunately, but I'd encourage you all to check it out, or at least hunt down Niccol's other work if you haven't already.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
"The Amazing Spider-man" Trailer
It's finally here, the first trailer for Mirror's Edge the movie--I mean, the Spider-man reboot.
Yeah, I'm not a gamer, and even I immediately made the connection after that first-person platformer shot that takes up half the goddamn trailer. Also, why did the spider bit his neck instead of his hand? NERD RAGE!!
Well, nitpicks aside, there's really nothing terribly wrong with the trailer. Honestly, the movie probably won't be horrible taken on it's own, and I never thought otherwise. The problem with this whole reboot idea is in concept. It's not just that it's unnecessary, that's obvious to anyone who was alive when the first Spider-man movie came out, which I'm guessing is most of you. But the fact is, while the first film is not that highly regarded in comparison to other superhero films (it's liked but not loved, vastly eclipsed by the way better sequel), It has been around just long enough to have proved itself a classic. Everybody saw it, everybody remembers it. Everybody remembers the upside down kiss, the opening narration etc. It's embedded itself into pop culture in a lasting way. An to remake it so soon it nothing short of laughable. It not like The Hulk, where the just calling a do over after they tripped at the starting line. This is them scrapping the franchise after ONE critical failure of an otherwise successful series of films, even though it still made a profit. What, THIS is the franchise where Hollywood actually listens to the critics? What happened to that attitude when they were making the Transformers movies?
Yeah, I'm not a gamer, and even I immediately made the connection after that first-person platformer shot that takes up half the goddamn trailer. Also, why did the spider bit his neck instead of his hand? NERD RAGE!!
Well, nitpicks aside, there's really nothing terribly wrong with the trailer. Honestly, the movie probably won't be horrible taken on it's own, and I never thought otherwise. The problem with this whole reboot idea is in concept. It's not just that it's unnecessary, that's obvious to anyone who was alive when the first Spider-man movie came out, which I'm guessing is most of you. But the fact is, while the first film is not that highly regarded in comparison to other superhero films (it's liked but not loved, vastly eclipsed by the way better sequel), It has been around just long enough to have proved itself a classic. Everybody saw it, everybody remembers it. Everybody remembers the upside down kiss, the opening narration etc. It's embedded itself into pop culture in a lasting way. An to remake it so soon it nothing short of laughable. It not like The Hulk, where the just calling a do over after they tripped at the starting line. This is them scrapping the franchise after ONE critical failure of an otherwise successful series of films, even though it still made a profit. What, THIS is the franchise where Hollywood actually listens to the critics? What happened to that attitude when they were making the Transformers movies?
Thursday, July 14, 2011
John Carter trailer
UPDATE: Now that the movie's out, I've made a video review of it you can view here.
It's about damn time.
Seriously, how is it that we're only NOW getting a John Carter of Mars movie? Imagine if the upcoming Conan reboot was the first time that character has ever graced the big screen? Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom novels that began with A Princess of Mars in 1917 is one of those essential examples of pulp sci-fi that pretty much every major space opera owes its existence too. Before Slave Leia, Dejah Thoris was THE sex symbol of geek culture. Hell, she arguably still is.
Even if you've never read the novels in your life, you probably recognize the above image. Frank Frazetta's paintings are a large part of what kept franchises like Conan & John Carter in the popular culture, or at least nerd culture. So tell me: with a classic franchise this old and this culturally significant, why the hell did the fucking Aslyum get around to making a movie out of it before Hollywood did?!
Not that the trailer looks super-great or anything. It's pretty discouraging when the two most visible leading actors are best known for being in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Although apparently Willem Dafoe is playing Tars Tarkas (think Goro from Mortal Kombat but green). I'm curious as to whether he with be physically playing the role or just voicing a CGI version (given the brief glimpse of an alien we see, I'm guessing the latter). Still this is yet another instance of a veteran Pixar director doing his first live action feature, so fingers crossed for Andrew Stanton. Plus I'm glad that it doesn't look like another Prince of Persia, that is it doesn't look like another action-comedy that Disney desperately wants to be their new Pirates of the Caribbean.
Still, this movie is a good 30 or 40 years overdue. I highly doubt it'll accumulate quite the cult following that the original Conan movie did, but we'll see.
(P.S. Dejah Thoris is wearing WAY to much clothing. Yeah yeah, Disney movie and all, but still that's kinda what she's known for, being basically nude. Besides, Mystique got away with it.)
It's about damn time.
Seriously, how is it that we're only NOW getting a John Carter of Mars movie? Imagine if the upcoming Conan reboot was the first time that character has ever graced the big screen? Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom novels that began with A Princess of Mars in 1917 is one of those essential examples of pulp sci-fi that pretty much every major space opera owes its existence too. Before Slave Leia, Dejah Thoris was THE sex symbol of geek culture. Hell, she arguably still is.
Even if you've never read the novels in your life, you probably recognize the above image. Frank Frazetta's paintings are a large part of what kept franchises like Conan & John Carter in the popular culture, or at least nerd culture. So tell me: with a classic franchise this old and this culturally significant, why the hell did the fucking Aslyum get around to making a movie out of it before Hollywood did?!
Not that the trailer looks super-great or anything. It's pretty discouraging when the two most visible leading actors are best known for being in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Although apparently Willem Dafoe is playing Tars Tarkas (think Goro from Mortal Kombat but green). I'm curious as to whether he with be physically playing the role or just voicing a CGI version (given the brief glimpse of an alien we see, I'm guessing the latter). Still this is yet another instance of a veteran Pixar director doing his first live action feature, so fingers crossed for Andrew Stanton. Plus I'm glad that it doesn't look like another Prince of Persia, that is it doesn't look like another action-comedy that Disney desperately wants to be their new Pirates of the Caribbean.
Still, this movie is a good 30 or 40 years overdue. I highly doubt it'll accumulate quite the cult following that the original Conan movie did, but we'll see.
(P.S. Dejah Thoris is wearing WAY to much clothing. Yeah yeah, Disney movie and all, but still that's kinda what she's known for, being basically nude. Besides, Mystique got away with it.)
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
"Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol" trailer
So they're making another one of these, I guess. And it's directed by...Brad Bird?!
Yes, apparently this is Brad Bird's first attempt at a live action feature. Anyone who's seen his Pixar films (which I assume is all of you and then some), or his criminally underrated The Iron Giant, knows he can definitely tell a good story (he also wrote the even more underrated *batteries not included, but didn't direct it). Unfortunately, he didn't write this one. In fact, J.J. Abrams apparently stuck around after the last one to help with the script, and brought his Alias writing staff with him. Although Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzmen are nowhere to be seen, which is always a plus.
This will definitely be interesting to see Bird test his range as a director. Many directors tend to sink when they stray from their well-trodden path into unfamiliar ground. Martin Campbell, a director mostly known for action pieces using old school stunt-work and on-location shooting, tried that just weeks ago with Green Lantern, a film that was roughly 78% shot on green screen, and look how that worked out. Let us hope Bird is a little more adaptable.
The trailer doesn't look terribly promising. Pretty standard rehash of the Mission: Impossible formula. Definitely hating the music: a hip hop song followed by a scant few cords of the Mission: Impossible theme? What the hell? The cast is fine: Paula Patton as the obligatory hot chick (this is her first big blockbuster film to my knowledge, so only time will tell if this is her breakout role into the mainstream), Simon Pegg (who seems to be appearing in more & more action oriented roles lately) as presumably the comic relief, and Tom Wilkinson, always good.
Not to doubt the great Brad Bird, but somehow I don't see this being a hit. The studio clearly isn't banking on it, considering they gave a December release date to a film clearly made for the Summer. Plus, it's the fourth in a franchise, and I highly doubt we're going to get two good post-trilogy sequels in one year. Though admittedly I did like the second one a lot more than most people, so maybe it'll be this year's guilty pleasure for me.
Yes, apparently this is Brad Bird's first attempt at a live action feature. Anyone who's seen his Pixar films (which I assume is all of you and then some), or his criminally underrated The Iron Giant, knows he can definitely tell a good story (he also wrote the even more underrated *batteries not included, but didn't direct it). Unfortunately, he didn't write this one. In fact, J.J. Abrams apparently stuck around after the last one to help with the script, and brought his Alias writing staff with him. Although Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzmen are nowhere to be seen, which is always a plus.
This will definitely be interesting to see Bird test his range as a director. Many directors tend to sink when they stray from their well-trodden path into unfamiliar ground. Martin Campbell, a director mostly known for action pieces using old school stunt-work and on-location shooting, tried that just weeks ago with Green Lantern, a film that was roughly 78% shot on green screen, and look how that worked out. Let us hope Bird is a little more adaptable.
The trailer doesn't look terribly promising. Pretty standard rehash of the Mission: Impossible formula. Definitely hating the music: a hip hop song followed by a scant few cords of the Mission: Impossible theme? What the hell? The cast is fine: Paula Patton as the obligatory hot chick (this is her first big blockbuster film to my knowledge, so only time will tell if this is her breakout role into the mainstream), Simon Pegg (who seems to be appearing in more & more action oriented roles lately) as presumably the comic relief, and Tom Wilkinson, always good.
Not to doubt the great Brad Bird, but somehow I don't see this being a hit. The studio clearly isn't banking on it, considering they gave a December release date to a film clearly made for the Summer. Plus, it's the fourth in a franchise, and I highly doubt we're going to get two good post-trilogy sequels in one year. Though admittedly I did like the second one a lot more than most people, so maybe it'll be this year's guilty pleasure for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)